Monday, 27 July 2009

Marriage strike is a term coined by some masculist authors to describe the idea that a substantial fraction of men avoid (or should avoid) marriage out of a conscious fear of financial devastation in the event of divorce.

Advocates of the marriage strike hold that the combination of laws permitting no-fault divorce , and prevailing conditions in divorce ourts that are substantially more likely to favor the wife over the husband in disputes over child custody, visitation rights, ownership of the family residence and other shared property, child support, and alimony, makes it possible for a woman to unilaterally divorce her husband while simultaneously depriving him of the right to see his offspring and financially crippling him. They argue that since the divorce rate is high, and since women are more likely than men to seek no-fault divorce, scenarios like the above are a likely outcome of marriage, and that many men, fearing such an outcome, choose not to marry. There has been a study showing that a range of 60 to 93 percent of no-fault divorces in the United States were initiated by women, usually against a man who works a blue-collar job for grounds cited "emotional unfulfillment."

Proponents of the marriage strike advise that men should consider cohabitation as a safer alternative to marriage, or that in the event of marriage, men should protect themselves through prenuptial agreements or marrying a woman from a more patriarchal culture.

White women are more prepared to marry outside their race if they get a better provider and protector.

White men are more prepared to to marry outside their race if they get a better kind of wife and mother.

I used to laugh at BNP activists when they said that they feared for the white race, and airily told them that they were confusing the extinction of white dominance with the extinction of the white race.

It seems I owe them an apology, for all men with any sense would reject promiscuous women infected by feminist ideology, if only from a sense of self-preservation. Since most white women are thus infected (and you do not need to be white to be thus infected http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2009/07/muslim-and-looking-for-love.html), it seems increasingly clear that feminism is in fact the time-bomb that will destroy Western civilisation and significantly reduce the numbers of the white race, because both men and women will be extremely keen to marry other races, for their own individual self-preservation.

Since most of my friends are white, I look upon this as a matter of some concern, however much they have been degraded by promiscuity, alcohol, drugs and the welfare state.

At least Muslim men with a Pakistani background can opt for a nice Pakistani girl of their own race. Not so the white urban proletariat whose means do not enable him to go bride shopping.

It seems Muslim women are also pricing themselves out of the market. British Muslim women want to marry British Muslim men, but they are very fussy and critical. British Muslim men have the advantage of opting to have a wife from Pakistan, untouched by feminist assumptions, who will be properly respectful of their husbands.

How should women who falsely accuse men of rape be punished? I already know two locals I know from the pub that this happened to. They are pussycats and their theory is that the woman couldn't take no for an answer. Serves them right for having anything to do with the crazy ladies they meet in pubs, eh?

The number 4 is considered unlucky by the Chinese because it sounds like death. Two 4s therefore would be considered doubly unlucky. It would appear that we are an unlucky nation in a doomed civilisation.

Do you hear anything being proposed by the government about discouraging women from becoming unmarried mothers? Well, do you?

Of course not, because they have shit for brains.

Do you hear anything from the Church about condemning family breakdown and female promiscuity? Other than to be "more relevant to modern life" and lowering their standards just to get more bums on seats?

No, because they have shit for brains too. What happens to civilisations whose people don't do anything about their shit-for-brains politicians?

They all die a natural death of course.

Our alotted time-span is now coming to an end.

028.058YUSUFALI: And how many populations We destroyed, which exulted in their life (of ease and plenty)! now those habitations of theirs, after them, are deserted,- All but a (miserable) few! and We are their heirs!PICKTHAL:And how many a community have We destroyed that was thankless for its means of livelihood! And yonder are their dwellings, which have not been inhabited after them save a little. And We, even We, were the inheritors.SHAKIR: And how many a town have We destroyed which exulted in its means of subsistence, so these are their abodes, they have not been dwelt in after them except a little, and We are the inheritors,

028.059YUSUFALI: Nor was thy Lord the one to destroy a population until He had sent to its centre a messenger, rehearsing to them Our Signs; nor are We going to destroy a population except when its members practise iniquity.PICKTHAL: And never did thy Lord destroy the townships, till He had raised up in their mother(-town) a messenger reciting unto them Our revelations. And never did We destroy the townships unless the folk thereof were evil-doers.SHAKIR: And your Lord never destroyed the towns until He raised in their metropolis a messenger, reciting to them Our communications, and We never destroyed the towns except when their people were unjust.

Wednesday, 22 July 2009

Sorry to go on about this, but I am of the opinion that even an alpha male shared is better than a multiplicity of sub-alpha males.

Newsnight last night did a feature on polygamy. Tim Winter, the Islamic scholar, was telling us of polygamy being something a wife who had a job in the City was asking him about, because she would prefer it if she could resume her career after having her child, and entrust her child to the care of her husband's other wife.

Monday, 20 July 2009

Female promiscuity is supported by feminism. Female promiscuity causes single parenthood, family breakdown, which in turn causes societal breakdown through rising crime and ever-lowering standards of education and behaviour.

Should all decent right-thinking members of society of both sexes now challenge feminsim?

Shall we equate Libertarian principles with governmental minimalism, rational and masculine principles of good husbandry, and liberal socialism with the suffocating over-nannying of a neurotic attention-seeking mother, reluctant to let go of her apron strings?

Does feminism, backed up by a welfare state, make women as well as men stupid? Are we already doomed because our politicians now all think like stupid lying women, with the exception of Peter Mandelson? It is said that a civilisation rots from the head down but it would appear that we are simultaneously suffering from foot rot as well as brain rot.

Because easy sex is analogous to the welfare state making infantilised weaklings of us. If men do not have to prove themselves worthy to women in order to get sex - other than by being a good shag - then they do not bother with the other important things of life, such as income, status, intellect, strength, courage and ambition - the sort of thing that excites sensible women.

Women who are losers, mediocre thinkers, with their loser thought-patterns, are infecting men with their loser values of victimhood, ie whingeing but not doing anything about it because they are mostly frightened, socially insecure, and don't want to look foolish.

They have passed their contagion on to men. Yet no one dares points this out.

This is because the West (and their Family Courts) is now ruled by irrational and totalitarian feminine/feminist values. Yes, the ones that prevent reporters reporting the injustices daily perpetrated by the Family Courts against men "in the interests of the child".

Health and safety, bossy anti-smoking laws, the nuclear weapon of accusing recalcitrant men of paedophilia - when he will be assumed guilty until proven innocent - these are all signs of the toxic irrationality of dominant feminine values.

Yet still these women whinge.

More men than ever before are undergoing castration to become women because they sense the power of women, and want a slice of the action. Yet still these women whinge about glass ceilings and their "oppression", when women can screw around, asset-strip their husbands, breed inferior offspring and get bailed out by the taxpayer.

They are so in power that no man even dares to suggest the abolition of child benefit for single parents or the abolition of child benefit for all, even in these straitened times, even when the dimmest of these women has an inkling that single parenthood is bad for society.

Why do most people reject sensible solutions because they are slightly controversial and involve an element of compulsion?

Because they don't want to take risks and make a fool of themselves, of course! Most women are like that.

It is a bit like a woman coming whingeing to you and being offended when you suggest how she might do things a little differently.

She just wants a sympathetic ear, a cup of tea (or a bottle of wine more likely, these days), a comforting pat on the shoulder, a little cuddle. She doesn't want to leave her job or her husband , change her boyfriend or do anything different.

What do you think happens when virtually the entire nation and its leaders has embraced this demented feminine world view?

National and civilisational decline of course!

But will the ideologically castrated men be up to defeating this scourge?

Wednesday, 15 July 2009

You are hoist by your own petard I am afraid, when you compare the acquisition of a woman with the acquisition of a pet you would eventually tire of, the moment she loses her looks!

While men complain about being treated like meal tickets, women complain about being treated as sex objects, and therefore treat each other as means to end, something Kant told us we must not do.

Not that an old cynic like me would find that at all surprising, but I just wish people would be more honest about it, instead of harbouring impossibly high expectations of romantic love.

I have already said that I include myself amongst life's losers because I am not already partnered. In fact, I have not even met anyone I remotely fancy who has rejected me! This is a state of affairs I find shocking, but then my mother's mocking comments that most British men are poor and lazy jobless welfare claimants explains a lot. And those who are not on welfare, who still have jobs and are middle class, middle-aged and professional invariably have had the stuffing knocked out of them after their divorce.

My Chinese girlfriend comments on the meanness of English men, compared with those of Chinese men who wish to woo her: how little they have, how little they expect to give in the way of entertainment and gifts, and how easily they expect a woman to part with her favours.

I am quite aware that a woman in middle age looking for a decent man is like a man on a low income without prospects looking for a big house in a nice neighbourhood. What I find interesting and also disturbing is that younger and more attractive women cannot find decent men either.

Yes, the dinner guest said he had had a messy divorce. Only millionaires and very resourceful men these days can survive a divorce when half their assets are taken by their ex-wives. Ordinary mortals will find themselves too poor to be of any interest to a decent woman after a divorce, and women, as we know, are mostly obsessed by income and status, as they should be.

It is better for a nation that its women are obsessed by status and income than by casual sexual encounters.

While I would have no difficulty agreeing that men are punters and women prostitutes, one should at least know what one is worth and what one can acquire with what one has, bearing these "facts of life" in mind. Unfortunate is the woman who does not know her own value, or sells herself short, and subsequently rues the day, when it is too late for her to repair the damage of a bad decision. Her worth, ie her looks, are a depreciating asset, and she cannot be put back in the position she was in when she married her unsuitable partner, not even with cosmetic surgery.

As for my girlfriend who would not come to dinner, she is just like so many other women I know, who do not seek the company of men unless there is something in it for them, ie the prospect of finding boyfriend or husband material. It is not that this particularly surprises me, knowing what I do of her, only that it was so pointed. She did not want to talk about politics, she made it clear, but what did she want to talk about? Her idea of the perfect evening was to enthral men she wanted to attract, but, knowing that the men would be too poor and old for her, she made her excuses and declined.

She would have come if they were women, I am sure, simply because she would expect to enjoy their company and conversation more.

If you have any experience of French women, their attitude is even more pointed. They won't even speak to you once they have made up their minds that you are not a prospect. In fact, they will not even be seen to be speaking to you and will cut you dead in the street if you greet them, if they have made up their minds that you are a low-status male with whom any public associaton is an embarrassment.

Such a woman would no more greet such a man in the street than you would your dustman, your drug-dealer, your therapist or the prostitute you consorted with.

But snobbish and rude Frenchwomen are the obverse of charming Frenchman because he knows that is how he must be to have a chance of acquiring such ruthless women as partners.

I am only surprised that so many Western men do not understand this and are not told this by their parents. But perhaps this is not that surprising because most boys grow up without their fathers. Perhaps they feel they do not need to, because most of their women are so infamously promiscuous anyway.

I do not feel I judge the men I know by impossibly high standards. These are only the standards that my mother enjoins me to adhere to, for my own good.

All I ask is that they are not stupid, not scared, not mad, bad and sad, and not poor.

Napoleon Hill in his book Think and Grow Rich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_and_Grow_Richwhich I would recommend to any poor man who wants to do more than live in hope of winning the lottery, explains the positive role sexual attraction could play for men. However, it must be borne in mind that this would only work if women were not as a rule encouraged and expected to be promiscuous.

If a man is not attracted to women, or if the attraction is weak, or he does not in fact want children, he will leave women alone, and lead a carefree single life, untroubled by the biological imperative of attracting a female that other men also desire, or attempting to impress her with his status and wealth, or provide for the children he may have with her.

As you said, women and men of our parents' generation coupled more easily. That was because most people married for children and economic reasons, and women were economically disadvantaged. Now that women are in fact economically advantaged through the process of asset-stripping their husbands by this procedure known as no-fault divorce and the Sex Discrimination Act, and are financially independent, they quite understandably do not see why they have to put up with male foibles.

Now, foolishly, people marry for romantic reasons only to find that romance does not last. But marriage was invented by wiser generations who already knew that.

I, N , take you, N ,to be my husband,to have and to holdfrom this day forward;for better, for worse,for richer, for poorer,in sickness and in health,to love and to cherish,till death us do part;

I am afraid I am quite offended. I have no particular need of a 'relationship' and no desire for one.

There have been occasions when - if you remember - we have been followed home by cats.

On those occasions it is clear to me that the cats are charming - for a short time.

Would I consider keeping one as a pet? Frankly, no. I would become tired of it in time.

If you view successful people as halves of couples then fair enough. Why aren't you one half of a couple then?

Surely it is all a matter of your expectations. You told your friend who wouldn't come to dinner that both your male guests were 'probably too old and too poor' for her.

Well, did you really expect her to come after that?

It is true that I don't make much but your other guest used to own a house which I happen to know was worth at least a million by the time he parted with it.

Was he completely cleaned out by his divorce or what?

Women like you make me angry. No wonder none of us can marry or find women. You would sooner fantasise about a Peter Mandelson, say, than settle for what is in front of you - what is in effect no doubt being offered by your various 'admirers'.

Women and men of my father's generation coupled more easily - because they understood that they would make themselves happier that way and did not seem to expect so much.

You become frustrated and angry and seem to live half your life on the internet - to judge from your recent texts - because you won't settle for less than perfection.

Whilst men who might be interested in you - and who might bring you emotional and physical pleasure - find themselves being judged by impossibly high standards that they are most unlikely to able to meet.

These are points raised by indignant male friend denying that the British are a bunch of losers in the previous post:

LOSER GIRLFRIENDSGirlfriend B is not responding to any of my communications. Girlfriend A (the one who would not come to dinner) says she can't that weekend.

Girlfriend B may be out of the country. Girlfiend A may be offended when I declined to join her and others in the pub the day after she declined my invitation to dinner. I asked what the action was like at the pub that evening, and she said there was no action, just a pleasant evening. I then wondered what exactly was the point of single women meeting in a pub all dolled up and then not getting any "action". Surely it would be cheaper and easier - if they only wanted to be in each other's company - to go to each other's homes instead of meeting in a pub after dolling themselves up? Such "cruise buddy" evenings were invariably disappointing and expensive, and I suggested to her that it was perhaps a little disingenuous of her to pretend that no action was being sought when clearly one would not go to such trouble and expense if one really was not looking for any "action".

When I was inviting her to dinner, she asked if the guests were male, and upon being told yes, asked what they were like. To save her the trouble and disappointment of unrealistic romantic expectations, I said "probably too old and too poor for you". It was just a dinner anyway, not an exercise in match-making, so couldn't she just come for the hell of it, I asked. The answer, as you know, was NO.

Perhaps I should not have made "Rapunzel, Rapunzel, won't you let down your hair" jokes, but I know now that she is seriously neurotic about the whole thing, as her mother hinted to me. Going out is a social ordeal and a big big deal. The rewards must be great for her to even consider such an enterprise. Dinner with two men she has never met whom she thinks she would probably not fancy is clearly insufficient inducement for her to accept.

I of course deplore this attitude and felt bound to say something to show my disapproval.

I do have other female friends, but they suffer from one, some or all the following characteristics: of being abroad, not local, not hot, on holiday, not single, wouldn't come all this way or would come and bring their dog.

FIGHTING MALE GUESTSThat the male guests would fight over my favours was said for effect but partly true. Some years ago one male friend was trying to get another to leave because the one being asked to leave had obviously had too much to drink. This exercise of apparent territorial proprietorship was considered inflammatory by the one told to leave.

LOSER MALE GUESTS AND HOSTESSI am afraid I do think that being single suggests that one is in fact less desirable and less successful than those already coupled. I of course necessarily have to include myself in this description.

WHY THE BRITISH ARE A BUNCH OF LOSERSI am thinking of Wimbledon, the England cricket team, Afghanistan, Iraq as well as the education and political system of this country.

3) whether it is a good thing to have so many single people who are not seeking partners or who cannot find partners

4) whether it is my fault for not having more successful, attractive and saner friends

5) whether there is a cultural, societal and political explanation

6) why the radicalisation of youth with Islam is so easy to achieve in the face of the sheer demoralisation of living in a loser nation with a loser culture whose leaders are just a bunch of international losers

There is a possibility that you will be even more offended after receiving this explanation.

What I said to the male friend who did not want to be tarred with the same brush as my other male friends whom I did not think could easily produce a bird and a bottle.

Thank you for your suggestion, but it seems a bit of an imposition to ask single male friends to bring a bottle and a bird when I already know they are in difficulties getting hold of the latter. I suppose this means I must concentrate on making more female friends so that I lead a more gender-balanced life.

He responded:

I think you make your single male friends sound like a bunch of losers.

I would not - I would have you know - find any difficulty finding a female companion to take to an event, provided there was a certain amount of notice.

You are making a mistake if you assume that I belong to a group of men that cannot find women.

Perhaps you did not mean me, but it is possible that you do.

I then said to him:

I would not like it if I received an invitation to a party asking me to bring a male partner, whether or not I think I can produce one or not, at short notice or not!

I would like to think that the host or hostess would have enough friends of his or her own to complete the guest list without asking for help, and that my company in itself would be sufficient.

Please do not think I think that you in particular are a bit of a loser.

Frankly, I feel a bit of a loser and that my friends - male and female - are a bunch of losers. The whole thing started as a whinge about the quality of my female friends, remember?

It was going to develop into a rant about being in a country where everybody is a bit of a loser, because this country has a bit of loser culture about it, but I think I had better drop the subject now!

And then he said:

I am aware that the thread began as a rant about your female friends. It is rather surprising that you cannot seem to persuade any of them to come. I wonder why not.

I was only suggesting that you invite people to 'bring a friend/guest' if they wanted to just to increase the range of people a bit and maybe correct the gender imbalance.

Then you could have canvassed people beforehand just to ask whom they intended to bring, if anyone.

In reality I doubt whether the men present would start quarrelling in the act of vying for your attentions, although you do imply this happened once in the past.

Ideally of course, as you say, guests at a party should all consist of the host or hostess's friends. From this would derive the charm and creativity of choosing a set of guests.

I completely fail to take the point about this country's loser culture. If you or I are in fact losers this is our own responsibility and no-one else's.

Every now and then I think about having a party, especially in the summer. I therefore mused on Facebook and solicited opinions about whether to have one, bearing in mind my gender-unbalanced life of always having more male friends than female friends, due to my obsessive interest in politics.

Women on the whole find it uncomfortable hurtful to have their views challenged or scrutinised and take it very personally when they lose an argument. Men, I generally find, are far more forgiving creatures. I am sure I have been more offensive to men than I have been to women, yet they mostly forgive me. Not so women, who anticipate the position I might take on something and then break off a friendship in anticipation of my disapproval, without even allowing me the opportunity to express that disapproval!

Since one of my male friends declared that he would find it unbearable to be at a party where the guests were mostly men, I wondered allowed how I could scrabble together enough female guests to prettify and feminise the party, bearing in mind my abject failure at the dinner party referred to in Part 1 to even come up with one single female friend.

The male friend suggested that each male guest could bring along a female partner. I dismissed the suggestion, perhaps too quickly, on the grounds that it would be a bit of an imposition to ask male friends I knew to be single and having trouble finding a decent woman, to bring along a bird as well as a bottle. It was more my role as a hostess to find single women for these male guests, I said, rather than rub salt into wounds.

The male friend was stung enough to point out that even if the others could not quite manage it, he certainly could, if I gave a bit of notice. He went on to say that I made it sound as if all my male friends were a bunch of losers who couldn't find women, and was deeply offended.

What follows is a series of exchanges with a male friend who is offended by a number of things I have said.

The origins of this was a rant about the unreliability of my female friends, which led to a rant about my male friends, which then became a generalised rant about the way this country is going, with its nation of losers, myself included.

I recently had a dinner party to return the hospitality of a man with whom I had recently had a convivial lunch, whom I hadn't seen for many years.

I was anxious not to give the impression that I was available, and, aware of his Casanova-like characteristics, wished neither to sacrifice my virtue nor disappoint and offend my dinner guest, whose expectations would be understandably heightened if he were the sole guest.

I therefore attempted to invite a both a male and female guest, both single, to make up the numbers.

I had hoped that a local girlfriend (divorced and vegetarian) would come since I already knew she did not go out much, and whose children, being now in secondary school, would be old enough to be left on their own for the evening.

However, she declined, after establishing that the other two guests were not female and that the men in question would be too old and too poor to be worth bothering with, and would be inclined to talk politics all evening.

She did not of course put it that bluntly. Indeed, it was I who in my exasperation said, after she delicately enquired what they were like, that they would be too old and too poor for her tastes, after having it confirmed by her that she could not just come to a dinner at which men were present, without first trying to establish if they were worth bothering with.

There was even a vegetarian option for her, dress was casual smart, so it was hardly a great effort.

Her ostensible excuse was that she could not leave her children on their own for just one evening to put themselves to bed.

Another female friend, who has attended two of my dinner parties, met three different men (but did not kick off a relationship with any of them), made her excuses and said she had to view a kitchen that evening.

Perhaps they both instantly intuited that if they were good husband or boyfriend material that I would have snapped them up for myself, and knew not to waste their time and energy dolling themselves up for, well, nothing apart from food and wine, and an evening talking to men with whom you cannot possibly form a romantic liaison.

I seethed and fumed at this then (about a fortnight ago), and still do.

The dinner went well, I thought, and we all talked politics, all evening.

Wednesday, 8 July 2009

Apparently, Jonathan Freedland will be doing precisely this on 14 July 2009 9.00 am and 9.30pm.

I do believe that Peter Mandelson is the only one capable of saving the Labour Party now, and indeed even this country. The Labourites do not like him, it seems, but I believe he is a man more sinned against than sinning, and that he has been misunderstood and traduced.

Doubtless he would have had to step on a few toes to make the shower that was the Labour Party electable as New Labour, and it seems they have not forgiven him for that.

I believe he will need a girlfriend and perhaps even a wife to make the British people warm to him. I willingly offer myself as a candidate should none more suitable than I be found, for I cannot now tell whether I am more in love with the idea or with the man himself. I am more than happy to find out, and commit to my project of saving the British people from David "PR" Cameron and his lily-livered Etonians.

I would have no trouble in settling into a ménage à trois so Reinaldo Avila da Silva need not fear me as a rival. I have said elsewhere online that I would happily consider a polygamy (on the grounds that many hands make light work), provided the male concerned is "alpha" enough, and I get along with his other wives.